State v. Mayor

Decision Date21 February 1898
Citation39 A. 685,61 N.J.L. 424
PartiesSTATE (LANDIS Prosecutor) v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BOROUGH OF VINELAND.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of George K. Landis, against the mayor and common council of the borough of Vineland, to bring up a tax warrant issued by defendants. Proceedings under the warrant set aside.

Argued November term, 1897, before VAN SYCKEL, COLLINS, and DIXON, JJ.

Charles K. Landis, for prosecutor.

Royal P. Tuller, for defendants.

DIXON, J. This certiorari brings up a tax warrant issued by the borough of Vineland for the sale of the prosecutor's land for the taxes of 1895, and the proceedings thereunder, including a certificate of sale made to the borough as purchaser. The warrant was issued July 14, 1896; the sale was made August 27, 1896; and the warrant was returned November 17, 1896. The only ground on which the prosecutor asks for a reversal of the proceedings is that the warrant was not returned within four months from its date, as the warrant and the statutes under which the sale was made required. 3 Gen. St. p. 3353; Landis v. Borough of Vineland (N. J. Sup.) 37 Atl. 1099. The question whether the title of a purchaser at a tax sale can be defeated by the failure of the officer to make return of his proceedings within the time prescribed by law has been answered by courts both affirmatively and negatively. Some have held that all such provisions of the statutes are mandatory, and strict compliance with them is necessary to perfect the title of the purchaser. Others have decided that only those provisions are mandatory which tend to protect the rights of parties jeopardized by the sale, and that in other respects statutory rules as to the officer's proceedings subsequent to the sale are merely directory. The latter doctrine seems to be most in accord with judicial opinion in this state. Thus, in Hopper v. Malleson's Ex'rs, 16 N. J. Eq. 382, Chancellor Green said: "To establish a title under a sale for taxes, it is incumbent on the purchaser to show that all the prerequisites to the exercise of the power of sale have been complied with." And in Inhabitants v. Allen, 43 N. J. Law, 262, Mr. Justice Depue, in delivering the opinion of the court of errors, said "that one who claims title under a tax sale takes upon himself to show affirmatively that the tax was duly assessed, and was a lien on the land, and that the successive steps which led to the sale were regularly taken." To the same effect is the language of this court in Jones v. Landis Tp., 50 N. J. Law, 374, 13 Atl. 251: "A sale of land for taxes will be set aside unless all conditions precedent appear to have been performed." In none of these cases is it intimated that the omission of the officer after the sale can invalidate the title of the purchaser. But in Baxter v. Mayor, etc., 36 N. J. Law, 188, the rule was stated more broadly thus: "The sale of land for taxes or assessments is the execution of a naked power. Every requirement of the statute imposing the liability, and prescribing the procedure to enforce it, which tends to the security of the owner, or is for his benefit, must be strictly conformed to." On these cases, it seems safe to say that all proceedings up to and at the sale must be in accordance with the directions of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Brown v. Fid. Union Trust Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 13 Septiembre 1944
    ... ... the amount of the inventory, the amount shown by the account to have been collected in addition thereto, the amount of expenditures, and shall state the balance in the hands of the accountant.’ Rule 19 (1915), N.J.S.A. tit. 2. Rule 25 (1941), N.J.S.A. tit. 2. The present rule directing the ... ...
  • City of Old Town v. Robbins
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 3 Agosto 1936
    ...they relate to proceedings before or subsequent to the sale, must be strictly complied with, or the sale will be invalid. Landis v. Vineland, 61 N.J.Law, 424, 39 A. 685. The sale of land for taxes is the execution of a naked power. Baxter v. Jersey City, 36 N.J.Law (7 Vroom) 188, To prevent......
  • Hill v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • 11 Diciembre 1941
    ... ... If the ... purchaser refuses to accept the same or in the event the ... purchaser * * * cannot be located within the State of ... Deaware, then, in either event, it shall be lawful for the ... owner * * * to pay the amount of the redemption money to the ... City ... ...
  • Canal St. Garage & Auto Servicing Co. v. Allen, 8266.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 1941
    ...of his right to pay the tax before the sale has taken place or of his right to redeem the real estate from the sale. See Landis v. Vineland, 61 N.J.L. 424, 39 A. 685. There, at page 425 of 61 N.J.L., at page 686 of 39 A., the court says: "The question whether the title of a purchaser at a t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT